Ghana News Agency

Monday 30th September, 2013

(An
opinion article by 'Funmi Olonisakin and Godwin R. Murunga)Nairobi, Sept 30, GNA “ The tragic events at
Kenya's Westgate Mall that occurred from Saturday, September 21, 2013, which
lead to the deaths of at least 61 civilians, including Professor Kofi Awoonor,
are a harsh reminder of the vulnerabilities of states and societies in
responding to peculiar threats from actors that have nothing to l

(An
opinion article by 'Funmi Olonisakin and Godwin R. Murunga)

Nairobi, Sept 30, GNA “ The tragic events at
Kenya's Westgate Mall that occurred from Saturday, September 21, 2013, which
lead to the deaths of at least 61 civilians, including Professor Kofi Awoonor,
are a harsh reminder of the vulnerabilities of states and societies in
responding to peculiar threats from actors that have nothing to lose and that
kill or maim as public spectacle.

The events underscore the need for new and
prospective thinking about security. Such thinking must be anchored around a
dire need to prevent the kind of terror attacks at Westgate through other
means.

This focus on prevention, however, requires a
fundamental shift in security thinking and practice in a number of areas.First, we need a vision of security that
acknowledges but also moves beyond traditional defence of the state.

Twenty-first century threats, particularly
those of the Westgate extraction, require deeper knowledge of society and its
dividing and connecting lines. They also demand an appreciation of the
asymmetrical nature of new security threats, the fluidity of both the operational
environment and the tools that magnify and multiply those threats.

Furthermore, they require capacity to counter
the threats through a radical shift both in the narratives that mobilise and
unify society against impending perils, and in the constituency of actors that
must cohere to eliminate those threats.

Second, is coherence in thinking and approach
across the security establishment that in turn enables a coherent development
and application of security strategy. In this respect, security strategy is
derived from a clearly articulated vision by a leadership that demonstrates
commitment to transforming security discourse from a closed traditional
perspective.

Third, there is a need for shared
understanding and coalition-building across regional lines. Ideally, this will
be facilitated by leadership that is interested in coherent thinking about
security in the region with a shift away from old rigid approaches to security.

Fourth entails mobilisation of citizens and
generating security consciousness in ways that build unity around a common
vision of security without polarising society and deepening cracks along
religious or ethnic lines. It is important to mobilise society against the ˜us™
versus ˜them™ dichotomy in security thinking.

While state actors or decision-makers need to
reflect on a process of transformation along the above lines, societal
mobilisation “ nationally and regionally “ around a new relevant approach to
security requires its own organic process. Let us highlight three elements of
this process.

The first is a new security literacy and
consciousness. What we need is security literacy and consciousness that will
necessarily characterise societies that effectively seek to insulate themselves
against attacks of an irregular and asymmetric nature “ the kind that groups
like Al Shabaab, AQIM and Boko Haram depend on for survival and reproduction.

Second, this security literacy requires that
a critical mass in society is, at a minimum, well informed and educated about
basic security, about threats to security and about creative approaches to
countering them. The aim here is to moderate the secrecy in which security
processes tend to be cast. Much of the secrecy that surrounds security thinking
and planning must be jettisoned for the greater good of society. A more open
communication of security to citizens will enhance the creation of the critical
mass required to upscale security literacy and consciousness across the whole
of society.

Third, security consciousness needs a large
part of society to understand and take basic measures to protect themselves
individually and collectively. Such consciousness kept societies mobilised to
survive nuclear attacks in Europe at the height of the Cold War. In other
words, society played its part. This consciousness also came to play in British
populations™ alertness to IRA bombing threats from the 70s until the Good
Friday Agreement in the 90s.

Thinking and planning effectively for
security across African societies will require an inclusive and organic process
that goes beyond pure military measures. Invariably, the secrecy associated
with security thinking and planning must become more measured and open to
better oversight by Parliament and citizens. Oversight cannot be always a bad
thing.

Our societies must develop their own
innovative home-grown approaches to their peculiar security challenges while
seizing the advantage that technology and lessons of experience from elsewhere
have to offer. Effective communication of a clear vision of security to
citizens who rally around to make it real constitutes one path toward
adaptation to the 21st century security environment; and dealing with chains of
terror presented by groups like Al Qaeda, al Shabaab and Boko Haram.

Capturing citizens™ commitment to a well-articulated
security vision requires increased security literacy and consciousness. But
there remains a dearth of knowledge about security across African societies.
Kenya is not an exception despite its very active civil society. Altering this
scenario must be part of the process of mobilising society for security
transformation.

To effectively address these and many
questions, there are many knowledge institutions that can lead this thinking
and debate. At the African Leadership Centre, for instance, we have created
intellectual space to think through and bridge some of these gaps. Our mission
is to transform security and development discourses in Africa and to train a
new community of leaders generating cutting edge knowledge on peace, security
and development on the continent. We do this as a joint partnership between the
Institute for Development Studies at the University of Nairobi and King™s
College in London.

Our commitment is to think systematically
about this security problem. But we also recognise that there are many
professional networks in Africa that seriously complement this work. Drawing
from such professional network in Africa like the African Security Sector
Network, which convenes security sector scholars and policy practitioners along
regional lines, will greatly enhance the development of a new vision for
security studies in Africa. This is certainly a surmountable challenge if
effort is multiplied and targets are set.

* (Dr. ˜Funmi Olonisakin and Dr. Godwin R.
Murunga are at the African Leadership Centre, a joint initiative of King™s
College, London, and Institute for DevelopmentStudies, University of Nairobi.)